Does Catholic Church have the teaching/doctrine of 'Apostle Succession'

Yes, we have it.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Does Catholic Church have the teaching/doctrine of 'Apostle Succession'

Yes, we have it.

It's not nice to confuse him

No confusion. He asked us, I told him the Truth. Simple.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Does Catholic Church have the teaching/doctrine of 'Apostle Succession'

Yes, we have it.

It's not nice to confuse him

No confusion. He asked us, I told him the Truth. Simple.

I think he meant the church of Rome with his "Catholic Church".

Part of becoming unconfused is letting go of confusion.

This is the Catholic Church has a Church of Rome, with a bishop in it:

« Last Edit: November 02, 2012, 12:58:47 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Roman Catholic apostolic succession, unlike Orthodox apostolic succession, does not necessarily require a shared faith. But, for Orthodox, those who would succeed the apostles must have the faith of the apostles.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Roman Catholic apostolic succession, unlike Orthodox apostolic succession, does not necessarily require a shared faith. But, for Orthodox, those who would succeed the apostles must have the faith of the apostles.

Well, to be fair, there is a point where one has departed too far from the Nicene faith and no longer has Apostolic succession. I'm thinking of Anglicans here. We do not acknoweldge their orders.

« Last Edit: November 02, 2012, 02:31:10 PM by Papist »

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

But the point is that in the RCC, there is a certain mechanical aspect to the whole bestowal of "apostolic succession" on a particular bishop or church that does not exist for the Orthodox. This is why you guys have episcopi vagantes and we do not. Should someone be ordained by a bishop (or for that matter consecrated one) in one of our churches only to later leave the faith in favor of something else, they don't get to take their "validity" with them. My understanding is that once you're out, you're out. You must keep the faith if you are to keep the episcopacy. Otherwise you end up with nothing but pietism in fancy hats and robes.

But the point is that in the RCC, there is a certain mechanical aspect to the whole bestowal of "apostolic succession" on a particular bishop or church that does not exist for the Orthodox. This is why you guys have episcopi vagantes and we do not. Should someone be ordained by a bishop (or for that matter consecrated one) in one of our churches only to later leave the faith in favor of something else, they don't get to take their "validity" with them. My understanding is that once you're out, you're out. You must keep the faith if you are to keep the episcopacy. Otherwise you end up with nothing but pietism in fancy hats and robes.

What do you mean by "...a certain mechanical aspect to the whole bestowal of "apostolic succession"..."?

episcopi vagantes? I seem to have heard of 1 or 2 vagante "Orthodox" Churches. Milan Synod (or whatever name it goes by now)? Or is that something totally different?

Roman Catholic apostolic succession, unlike Orthodox apostolic succession, does not necessarily require a shared faith. But, for Orthodox, those who would succeed the apostles must have the faith of the apostles.

Well, to be fair, there is a point where one has departed too far from the Nicene faith and no longer has Apostolic succession. I'm thinking of Anglicans here. We do not acknoweldge their orders.

LOL. But on what basis?

Btw, it's not the Nicene faith but the Anglican "form" of ordination that is your (meaning the Vatican's) hang up.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

But the point is that in the RCC, there is a certain mechanical aspect to the whole bestowal of "apostolic succession" on a particular bishop or church that does not exist for the Orthodox. This is why you guys have episcopi vagantes and we do not. Should someone be ordained by a bishop (or for that matter consecrated one) in one of our churches only to later leave the faith in favor of something else, they don't get to take their "validity" with them. My understanding is that once you're out, you're out. You must keep the faith if you are to keep the episcopacy. Otherwise you end up with nothing but pietism in fancy hats and robes.

But how do you know that an individual bishop might not be straying from the faith on a particular matter?

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

But the point is that in the RCC, there is a certain mechanical aspect to the whole bestowal of "apostolic succession" on a particular bishop or church that does not exist for the Orthodox. This is why you guys have episcopi vagantes and we do not. Should someone be ordained by a bishop (or for that matter consecrated one) in one of our churches only to later leave the faith in favor of something else, they don't get to take their "validity" with them. My understanding is that once you're out, you're out. You must keep the faith if you are to keep the episcopacy. Otherwise you end up with nothing but pietism in fancy hats and robes.

What do you mean by "...a certain mechanical aspect to the whole bestowal of "apostolic succession"..."?

'Mechanical' meaning that it is a matter of a who ordained who operating separately from keeping the same faith by which you were ordained. This is how certain people and churches understand apostolic succession: "I was ordained by so-and-so, who was ordained by so-and-so, and because those two guys are 'valid', I am 'valid' even if I'm not in communion with their church (anymore)." That doesn't work in Orthodoxy. You don't retain your status as _____ (whatever was conferred upon you) if you leave the communion. Like in my case, if I were to go back to being under Rome (hypothetically, of course!), I wouldn't be an Orthodox Christian anymore. I don't get to take that with me, so to speak. I didn't become some other thing, ontologically, by virtue of my baptism. So if I leave the Church, I don't become an "Orthodoxe vagante" or whatever -- I become some guy who is out of the church. The end.

Quote

episcopi vagantes? I seem to have heard of 1 or 2 vagante "Orthodox" Churches. Milan Synod (or whatever name it goes by now)? Or is that something totally different?

You'll have to ask others about that. I have no idea what you are referring to.

But the point is that in the RCC, there is a certain mechanical aspect to the whole bestowal of "apostolic succession" on a particular bishop or church that does not exist for the Orthodox. This is why you guys have episcopi vagantes and we do not. Should someone be ordained by a bishop (or for that matter consecrated one) in one of our churches only to later leave the faith in favor of something else, they don't get to take their "validity" with them. My understanding is that once you're out, you're out. You must keep the faith if you are to keep the episcopacy. Otherwise you end up with nothing but pietism in fancy hats and robes.

What do you mean by "...a certain mechanical aspect to the whole bestowal of "apostolic succession"..."?

'Mechanical' meaning that it is a matter of a who ordained who operating separately from keeping the same faith by which you were ordained. This is how certain people and churches understand apostolic succession: "I was ordained by so-and-so, who was ordained by so-and-so, and because those two guys are 'valid', I am 'valid' even if I'm not in communion with their church (anymore)." That doesn't work in Orthodoxy. You don't retain your status as _____ (whatever was conferred upon you) if you leave the communion. Like in my case, if I were to go back to being under Rome (hypothetically, of course!), I wouldn't be an Orthodox Christian anymore. I don't get to take that with me, so to speak. I didn't become some other thing, ontologically, by virtue of my baptism. So if I leave the Church, I don't become an "Orthodoxe vagante" or whatever -- I become some guy who is out of the church. The end.

Quote

episcopi vagantes? I seem to have heard of 1 or 2 vagante "Orthodox" Churches. Milan Synod (or whatever name it goes by now)? Or is that something totally different?

You'll have to ask others about that. I have no idea what you are referring to.

I'm fairly cerain that if a person is "ordained" and he does not believe in the Nicene faith, his "ordination" is invalid. But I'll have to look into that.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

I am under the impression that this definition (from Wikipedia) of "Episcopi vagantes" is not faulty:

Quote

Episcopi vagantes (singular: episcopus vagans, Latin for wandering bishops or stray bishops) are persons who have been consecrated as Christian bishops outside the structures and canon law of the established churches, and who are not in communion with any generally recognized diocese.

We don't have such a distinction in our Church. That's my only point in any of these posts.

episcopi vagantes? I seem to have heard of 1 or 2 vagante "Orthodox" Churches. Milan Synod (or whatever name it goes by now)? Or is that something totally different?

You'll have to ask others about that. I have no idea what you are referring to.

I'm referring to people like these folks http://orthodoxmetropolia.org/ and other "True" Orthodox (or however they refer to themselves) "communions" with bishops who are not in communion with the rest of the Orthodox world. Or am I barking up the wrong tree?

I am under the impression that this definition (from Wikipedia) of "Episcopi vagantes" is not faulty:

Quote

Episcopi vagantes (singular: episcopus vagans, Latin for wandering bishops or stray bishops) are persons who have been consecrated as Christian bishops outside the structures and canon law of the established churches, and who are not in communion with any generally recognized diocese.

We don't have such a distinction in our Church. That's my only point in any of these posts.

I see. Yes, I agree that that distinction does not exist in your communion. It's really just an R.C. view. Thanks for clarifying.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Roman Catholic apostolic succession, unlike Orthodox apostolic succession, does not necessarily require a shared faith. But, for Orthodox, those who would succeed the apostles must have the faith of the apostles.

Well, to be fair, there is a point where one has departed too far from the Nicene faith and no longer has Apostolic succession. I'm thinking of Anglicans here. We do not acknoweldge their orders.

LOL. But on what basis?

Btw, it's not the Nicene faith but the Anglican "form" of ordination that is your (meaning the Vatican's) hang up.

The form was declared invalid because the Anglican's do not intend to do what the Catholic Church does in ordination, (i.e. they don't intend to consecrate a priest to offer the Holy Sacrifice). Hence, they have departed from the faith on the matter of the priesthood.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

episcopi vagantes? I seem to have heard of 1 or 2 vagante "Orthodox" Churches. Milan Synod (or whatever name it goes by now)? Or is that something totally different?

You'll have to ask others about that. I have no idea what you are referring to.

I'm referring to people like these folks http://orthodoxmetropolia.org/ and other "True" Orthodox "communions" with bishops who are not in communion with the rest of the Orthodox world. Or am I barking up the wrong tree?

This question is definitely best posed to an EO, as that's where this group appears to come out of (or see themselves as the "true continuation" of), and I'm not aware of this particular group. But I would think that you are barking up the wrong tree anyway, if only because Eastern Orthodoxy (as far as I understand it; I don't think this is one of the areas where EO and OO differ) does not see these people as possessing apostolic succession even if they paint themselves as having received such via what is now a recognized/valid Orthodox Church (in communion with the rest of EO'xy), the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. So it remains the case that these do not represent an 'Orthodox' form of episcopi vagantes, because again this is just not a thing in Orthodoxy.

episcopi vagantes? I seem to have heard of 1 or 2 vagante "Orthodox" Churches. Milan Synod (or whatever name it goes by now)? Or is that something totally different?

You'll have to ask others about that. I have no idea what you are referring to.

I'm referring to people like these folks http://orthodoxmetropolia.org/ and other "True" Orthodox "communions" with bishops who are not in communion with the rest of the Orthodox world. Or am I barking up the wrong tree?

This question is definitely best posed to an EO, as that's where this group appears to come out of (or see themselves as the "true continuation" of), and I'm not aware of this particular group. But I would think that you are barking up the wrong tree anyway, if only because Eastern Orthodoxy (as far as I understand it; I don't think this is one of the areas where EO and OO differ) does not see these people as possessing apostolic succession even if they paint themselves as having received such via what is now a recognized/valid Orthodox Church (in communion with the rest of EO'xy), the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. So it remains the case that these do not represent an 'Orthodox' form of episcopi vagantes, because again this is just not a thing in Orthodoxy.

Roman Catholic apostolic succession, unlike Orthodox apostolic succession, does not necessarily require a shared faith. But, for Orthodox, those who would succeed the apostles must have the faith of the apostles.

Well, to be fair, there is a point where one has departed too far from the Nicene faith and no longer has Apostolic succession. I'm thinking of Anglicans here. We do not acknoweldge their orders.

I thought that was because of other issues--for example the fact that that many Anglicans had Romcan Catholics killed, as well as the disordered nation of how Anglicanism came into being. For example, I didn't think one could know for sure about succession. I haven't studied it, but, for example, if an ordained RC priest became an Anglican bishop and consecrated bishops, is that valid?

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Roman Catholic apostolic succession, unlike Orthodox apostolic succession, does not necessarily require a shared faith. But, for Orthodox, those who would succeed the apostles must have the faith of the apostles.

Well, to be fair, there is a point where one has departed too far from the Nicene faith and no longer has Apostolic succession. I'm thinking of Anglicans here. We do not acknoweldge their orders.

LOL. But on what basis?

Btw, it's not the Nicene faith but the Anglican "form" of ordination that is your (meaning the Vatican's) hang up.

The form was declared invalid because the Anglican's do not intend to do what the Catholic Church does in ordination, (i.e. they don't intend to consecrate a priest to offer the Holy Sacrifice). Hence, they have departed from the faith on the matter of the priesthood.

Sorry, Papist. I missed that explanation. Thanks.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Does Catholic Church have the teaching/doctrine of 'Apostle Succession'

Yes, we have it.

It's not nice to confuse him

No confusion. He asked us, I told him the Truth. Simple.

Except one have a very influential and powerful Pope while the other one don't have,what is the difference between Orthodox and Catholic Church on the issue/teaching /doctrine of "Apostolic Succession" ?

Except one have a very influential and powerful Pope while the other one don't have,what is the difference between Orthodox and Catholic Church on the issue/teaching /doctrine of "Apostolic Succession" ?

Orthodox Church: to have apostolic succession one should have be ordained by a man who was ordained by a (...) man who was ordained by an apostle, keep the Orthodox faith and belong to the (visible) Church.

Catholic Church: to have apostolic succession one should have be ordained by a man who was ordained by a (...) man who was ordained by an apostle. According to them also Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Nestorians, Old Catholics ans some Lutherans have it too despite not belonging to the same Church and not sharing faith.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Except one have a very influential and powerful Pope while the other one don't have,what is the difference between Orthodox and Catholic Church on the issue/teaching /doctrine of "Apostolic Succession" ?

Orthodox Church: to have apostolic succession one should have be ordained by a man who was ordained by a (...) man who was ordained by an apostle, keep the Orthodox faith and belong to the (visible) Church.

Catholic Church: to have apostolic succession one should have be ordained by a man who was ordained by a (...) man who was ordained by an apostle. According to them also Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Nestorians, Old Catholics ans some Lutherans have it too despite not belonging to the same Church and not sharing faith.

Except one have a very influential and powerful Pope while the other one don't have,what is the difference between Orthodox and Catholic Church on the issue/teaching /doctrine of "Apostolic Succession" ?

Orthodox Church: to have apostolic succession one should have be ordained by a man who was ordained by a (...) man who was ordained by an apostle, keep the Orthodox faith and belong to the (visible) Church.

Catholic Church: to have apostolic succession one should have be ordained by a man who was ordained by a (...) man who was ordained by an apostle. According to them also Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Nestorians, Old Catholics ans some Lutherans have it too despite not belonging to the same Church and not sharing faith.

what does (...) refer to ??

from what i gather, he is using ... to replaced the phrase "Ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was ordained by a man who was", which reaches back to ordained by an Apostle

Orthodox Church: to have apostolic succession one should have be ordained by a man who was ordained by a (...) man who was ordained by an apostle, keep the Orthodox faith and belong to the (visible) Church.

Catholic Church: to have apostolic succession one should have be ordained by a man who was ordained by a (...) man who was ordained by an apostle. According to them also Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Nestorians, Old Catholics ans some Lutherans have it too despite not belonging to the same Church and not sharing faith.

It seems that the teaching of Apostolic succession in Catholic and Orthodox Church is the same. Their teaching on Apostolic Succession is also that one should have be ordained by a man who was ordained by a (...) man who was ordained by an apostle.

I still cannot see the difference between Orthodox and Catholic Church on the teaching and doctrine of "Apostolic Succession".

Orthodox Church: to have apostolic succession one should have be ordained by a man who was ordained by a (...) man who was ordained by an apostle, keep the Orthodox faith and belong to the (visible) Church.

Catholic Church: to have apostolic succession one should have be ordained by a man who was ordained by a (...) man who was ordained by an apostle. According to them also Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Nestorians, Old Catholics ans some Lutherans have it too despite not belonging to the same Church and not sharing faith.

It seems that the teaching of Apostolic succession in Catholic and Orthodox Church is the same. Their teaching on Apostolic Succession is also that one should have be ordained by a man who was ordained by a (...) man who was ordained by an apostle.

I still cannot see the difference between Orthodox and Catholic Church on the teaching and doctrine of "Apostolic Succession".

You must also keep the Orthodox Faith to have valid Apostolic Succession in the Orthodox Church. Not so much for Catholics.

Does Catholic Church have the teaching/doctrine of 'Apostle Succession'

Yes, we have it.

It's not nice to confuse him

No confusion. He asked us, I told him the Truth. Simple.

Except one have a very influential and powerful Pope while the other one don't have,what is the difference between Orthodox and Catholic Church on the issue/teaching /doctrine of "Apostolic Succession" ?

The Orthodox are the Catholic Chruch.

As to the Vatican, it believes that once a bishop, always a bishop, even if deposed. Sort of like thinking that if a governor is impeached, he can still go on exercising the office of governor. However, if a bishop is deposed, the Orthodox Catholic Church holds that he cannot continue to exercise office, and any attempt he makes to do so is null and void.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Does Catholic Church have the teaching/doctrine of 'Apostle Succession'

Yes, we have it.

It's not nice to confuse him

No confusion. He asked us, I told him the Truth. Simple.

Except one have a very influential and powerful Pope while the other one don't have,what is the difference between Orthodox and Catholic Church on the issue/teaching /doctrine of "Apostolic Succession" ?

The Orthodox are the Catholic Chruch.

As to the Vatican, it believes that once a bishop, always a bishop, even if deposed. Sort of like thinking that if a governor is impeached, he can still go on exercising the office of governor. However, if a bishop is deposed, the Orthodox Catholic Church holds that he cannot continue to exercise office, and any attempt he makes to do so is null and void.

The difference is due to different understandings regarding the Sacraments in our Churches. In our Church, all Sacraments leave an indelible mark on the soul of the person who received it, so once you receive Holy Orders you cannot lose it...although our Church can certainly remove the ability of a Priest or Bishop from exercising his Priestly duties. The same goes with Holy Matrimony, which is why we believe in a decree of nullity rather than an ecclesiastical divorce. If the Sacrament of Matrimony actually took place, we don't believe it can be undone. Does the Eastern Orthodox Church believe that all Sacraments can be undone, or only some of them? If someone is Baptized and Chrismated in the Eastern Orthodox Church, and then leaves the Church at some point, is all the grace and effects on the soul from those Sacraments completely lost?

Does Catholic Church have the teaching/doctrine of 'Apostle Succession'

Yes, we have it.

It's not nice to confuse him

No confusion. He asked us, I told him the Truth. Simple.

Except one have a very influential and powerful Pope while the other one don't have,what is the difference between Orthodox and Catholic Church on the issue/teaching /doctrine of "Apostolic Succession" ?

The Orthodox are the Catholic Chruch.

As to the Vatican, it believes that once a bishop, always a bishop, even if deposed. Sort of like thinking that if a governor is impeached, he can still go on exercising the office of governor. However, if a bishop is deposed, the Orthodox Catholic Church holds that he cannot continue to exercise office, and any attempt he makes to do so is null and void.

The difference is due to different understandings regarding the Sacraments in our Churches. In our Church, all Sacraments leave an indelible mark on the soul of the person who received it, so once you receive Holy Orders you cannot lose it...although our Church can certainly remove the ability of a Priest or Bishop from exercising his Priestly duties. The same goes with Holy Matrimony, which is why we believe in a decree of nullity rather than an ecclesiastical divorce. If the Sacrament of Matrimony actually took place, we don't believe it can be undone. Does the Eastern Orthodox Church believe that all Sacraments can be undone, or only some of them? If someone is Baptized and Chrismated in the Eastern Orthodox Church, and then leaves the Church at some point, is all the grace and effects on the soul from those Sacraments completely lost?

Only Baptism (and absolution, the Baptism of tears, for the exact same sin and act) cannot be repeated: "I believe in one baptism for the remission of sins."

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth